ALEC - Aashayein Law Education Center|Law Coaching in Bhopal

15 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Shajiya Parveen and another v. State of U.P & ors:Important Judgment Explained

No legal protection for live-in relationship if male partner is below 21 years Live-in relationships occupy a legally complex space in India. The Supreme Court and various High Courts have over the years recognised that a live-in relationship that resembles a marriage in its character and stability may attract certain legal protections, particularly under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. However, this recognition is not unconditional. A recent ruling has drawn a firm line: a live-in relationship....

13 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Girjia Kumari & others vs State (NCT of Delhi):Understanding the Legal Impact

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 is one of India's most important social justice legislations. It exists to protect the most vulnerable members of society from discrimination, humiliation, and violence rooted in caste. But like every law, it has specific conditions that must be satisfied before its provisions are attracted. A recent ruling has clarified one such condition with considerable precision: alleged casteist abuse or intentional insult directed at a member of a Scheduled Caste....

11 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Ravi Das Gupta v. State of Madhya Pradesh 2026: Latest Verdict Every Judiciary Aspirant Must Read

Merely accompanying a minor who left voluntarily is not kidnapping: understanding Section 137 BNS and its limits. When a minor leaves home on their own and someone simply walks alongside them, is that person guilty of kidnapping? The answer, as this ruling makes clear, is no. Merely accompanying a minor who left voluntarily does not constitute the offence of kidnapping from lawful guardianship under Section 361 of the Indian Penal Code, now Section 137 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023.....

07 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Ishita Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan,2026 Sending abortion pills through courier does not constitute an offence

Can a person be prosecuted for sending abortion pills through a courier service to someone who needs them? This question sits at the crossroads of criminal law, medical law, and constitutional rights. A recent ruling has delivered a significant answer: sending abortion pills through a courier does not by itself constitute a criminal offence. The judgment carefully examines the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1971, the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, and the constitutional right to privacy and reproductive autonomy....

05 May 2026

Posted by: Aashayein Judiciary

Aseen V. State of UP (2026): High-Importance Judgement for Judiciary Exams

The Constitution of India guarantees every citizen the right to freely profess, practise, and propagate religion under Article 25, and every religious denomination the right to manage its own religious affairs under Article 26. These are fundamental rights of the highest importance in a pluralistic democracy. But they are not absolute. A recent ruling has restated with clarity what the Constitution itself makes plain: religious practices that disrupt social harmony, disturb public order, or threaten the rights of others are....

29 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

Rajiv Kishor Kirtilal Mehta v. Param Bir Singh: Section 225 BNSS Simplified – Framing of Charges Decoded

Facts of the case The case arose during the course of a criminal trial where charges had been framed against the accused at the outset of proceedings. As the trial progressed and evidence came on record, it became apparent to the court that the charges as originally framed did not fully or accurately capture the nature of the offence disclosed by the evidence. The prosecution moved an application before the trial court seeking alteration of the existing charge, or alternatively,....

27 Apr 2026

Posted by: Aashayein

State of Assam v. Moinul Haque @Monu 2026- Latest Judgement & Key Legal Insights

Facts of the case The case arose from a criminal conviction recorded by a trial court. The accused was found guilty of the offence charged and sentenced accordingly. Aggrieved by the conviction, the accused filed an appeal before the higher court, which is a standard remedy available under Section 415 of BNSS 2023, to any person convicted on a trial held by a Sessions Court or by a High Court. Before the appellate court, the accused challenged both the findings....

19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Latest Judgement

Nandini Sundar & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh 2025 (SC) 662 Bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma

Introduction The Supreme Court, while closing the long-standing Salwa Judum case, ruled that the mere enactment of a law by Parliament or a State Legislature cannot be treated as an act of contempt of court. The case involved a plea that challenged the enactment of the Chhattisgarh Auxiliary Armed Police Force Act, 2011, claiming it defied earlier court directions in the Salwa Judum matter. Article 129 & Article 142 – Powers of the Supreme Court to punish for contempt. Doctrine....

19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya

IEEE Mumbai Section Welfare Association v. Global IEEE Institute for Engineers, 2025

The bench comprising of Justices BV Nagarathna and SC Sharma Introduction In this case, the Supreme Court addressed a crucial procedural issue regarding the maintainability of a temporary injunction in an appeal filed against an order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Court clarified that once a plaint is rejected, it ceases to exist and any relief in the nature of injunction cannot be sustained unless the plaint....

19 Jun 2025

Posted by: Aishwarya Chourasia

Hussain Ahmed Choudhury & Ors. v. Habibur Rahman (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. 2025 (SC) 466

Bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan Introduction In this landmark judgment, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has clarified the legal position on the maintainability of a suit for declaration of title over a property in cases where the plaintiff is not a party to the impugned sale deed. The Court held that such a plaintiff is not required to seek cancellation of the sale deed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, and that a....